COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Cody Rivera
WRRH 200
Professor Green
20 February 2017
I Guess Less Really Is More
Here is a quick riddle: What can feed you, house you, clothe you, and heal you? Industrial hemp, which is estimated to be used in more than 25,000 products, spanning ten markets: ecosystem services agriculture, textiles, recycling, automotive, furniture, food/nutrition/beverages, paper, construction materials, and personal care. Industrial hemp comes from the same Cannabis species as Marijuana but is genetically different because of its use, chemical makeup, and cultivation methods that result in a THC concentration of no more than 0.3 percent. Lately, there has been opposing arguments on whether industrial hemp can have 25,000 different uses. In the article “Why Legalized Hemp Will Not Be a Miracle Crop,” author Dan Mitchell, published by the Modern Farmer, on October 17, 2013, argues that the claims of activist, who argue that industrial hemp can save Americas economy and environmental issues, are “widely exaggerated” (Mitchell 2) and that industrial hemp will never have a huge market for demand. In contrast, hemp activist and writer for the Los Angeles Times, Doug Fine, wrote an article “A Tip For American Farmers: Grow Hemp, Make Money”, published by the Los Angeles Times on June 25, 2017, which argues that U.S. farmers should start growing Industrial Hemp, which is reaching a $1 billion market in Canada, because it will save them money on agriculture production, produce more financial profits, restore America’s agricultural economy and contribute to reducing our effect on climate change. Throughout both articles, Mitchell and Fine employ logos and pathos as their persuasive writing techniques to convince readers and myself on their arguments. Mitchell relies heavily on citation and quotation of authorities and notable sources while Fine relies heavily on citation of factual and historical evidence. Mitchell also relies heavily on his persona and voice by seeming fair-minded, open-minded, and by showing awareness of industrial hemps complexity and treating the opposition with courtesy while Fine relies heavily on verbal irony by showing a contrast of what is said and what is meant. While both authors were not at all convincing, I believe Fine’s argument was more persuasive than Mitchell’s because Fine makes more effective use of his logical and emotional appeal to his authors.
Dan Mitchell supports his claim that hemp will not be a miracle crop that saves America’s economy and that hemp will not be a “trillion dollar crop” (Mitchell), by relying on citation and quotation of authorities and notable sources. Mitchell presents information that appeals to the intellect of the audience because he offers rational claims and reasoned judgment. He begins to prove that Industrial Hemp will not have a huge market potential by providing information by the Food and Agriculture Organization; “Worldwide, only about 200,000 acres of land were devoted to hemp cultivation in 2011…with that number being ‘”flat to decreasing’” in recent years in the 30 countries where hemp is cultivated” (Mitchell). Mitchell’s citation of the FAO is being used to guide his readers to logically understand just how small of a market industrial hemp is internationally. This is also employed to support his thesis by showing that the FAO also agrees with Mitchell’s claim. He continues to provide evidence in comparison to industrial hemp’s acre usage to further his perspective that hemp is not in demand on the market. He argues, “corn is planted on about 85 million acres in the U.C. alone every year” (Mitchell). These facts support Mitchell’s thesis by providing evidence that shows Hemps comparisons to other agricultural crops, which further develops his argument that Hemp is not a miracle crop. This supports his argument because Mitchell is employing logical reason to hemps current demand and market. Mitchell’s last major implementation of logos is his citation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the market potential of industrial hemp: “the market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, like those for sesame and poppy seeds” (Mitchell). These citations and quotations of authorities presented by Mitchell further support his argument because it proves that industrial hemp has a small market. Thus, his use of citation and quotation of authorities it is not enough to convince me that hemp’s market is not large and in demand.
In contrast, Doug Fine supports his argument by employing citation of factual and historical evidence and interviews into his article. Fine states that American farmers should grow Hemp to make money and get in on the emerging $1 billion market that is happening in Canada, which presents a statement that appeals to the intellect of the audience through reason. His logos is also recognized when he discusses the historical facts of industrial hemp: “Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper…the hemp webbing in his parachute saved George H.W. Bush’s life in World War II” (Fine 1). These facts were used to show America’s historical use of hemp and its market and how that can apply to today’s use and market. Additionally, Fine explains that farmers are shouting because “…U.S. policy is finally acknowledging that hemp can restore our agricultural economy, play a key role in dealing with climate change, and, best of all, allow American family farmers to get in on a hemp market that, just north of us in Canada, is verging on $1 billion a year” (Fine ). This statistic further establishes his logos by reaffirming his argument that Industrial Hemp should be grown by farmers because of its market potential of reaching $1 billion a year. Lastly, fine states,
“Canada’s windfall has barely been largely due to the American Demand for omega-balanced hempseed oil. But hemp has also a go-to material for dozens of applications all over the world. In a Dutch factory recently, I held the stronger-than-steel hemp fiber that’s used in Mercedes door panels, and Britain’s Marks and Spencer department store chain used hemp fiber insulation in a new flagship outlet” (Fine 2).
Fine employs these facts on the use of industrial hemp because he wants to prove to the readers that hemp has a vast market that can be exploited by farmers if they grow industrial hemp.
Mitchell was less effective than Fine in persuading readers and myself, with his use of logos, because Fine’s citation showed regard for the uses of industrial hemp in America while Mitchell did not once mention its use. Mitchell failed at persuading me because he did not once offer opposing views to his citations that stated why hemp was not going to have a huge market but rather trusted them without offering opposition. On the other hand, Fine relied on reliable citation while offering the potential use and historical use of hemp. Ultimately, even though Fine was not convincing to me at all, and I am a hemp activist, Fine was more persuasive and effective in his argument.
In addition to Mitchell’s logical appeal, Mitchell employs an emotional appeal to his readers through the use of his persona and voice by seeming fair-minded, open-minded, and by showing awareness of industrial hemps complexity and treating the opposition with courtesy. He states, “…the nation’s laws and attitudes regarding the cannabis plant are quickly changing. It seems likely that a thriving hemp market will finally develop here. But ‘thriving’ doesn’t mean ‘huge’ – not by a long shot” (Mitchell). By first recognizing the opposing side, he is showing that he is a fair-minded individual because he is able to analyze both sides of his argument and than take a logical stance on it. One of the other most compelling points that supports Mitchell’s implementation of persona and voice is when he analyzes Industrial Hemps environmental impact to support his argument: “The one big benefit of hemp? It requires few pesticides and no herbicides…On the other hand, it requires relatively large amounts of water, and its need for deep, humus-rich, nutrient dense soil limits growing locales” (Mitchell). Both of these points show his open-mindedness and courtesy to his audience who side with the benefits of industrial hemp. Qualifying these logical points in a truthful and fair-minded persona allows Mitchell to lead the audience to his argument and agree with him that Hemp is not going to have a huge market because he can be trusted.
In addition to Fine’s logical appeal, Fine relies heavily on pathos as a main writing technique to persuade his audience. He uses specific techniques like the employment of verbal irony to convey farmer’s praise of hemp. He states,
“If you hear farmers from South Carolina to Hawaii shouting “God bless America,” the isn’t because Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper (he did). Not is it because the canvas that puth the “covered” in pioneer coverered wagon was made of hemp, nor that the hemp webbing in his parachute saved George H.W. Bush’s life in World War II. Nope. It’s because U.S. policy is finally acknowledging that hemp can help restore our agricultural economy, play a key role in dealing with climate change…(Fine 1).
Fine states this to contrast what is said and what is meant so that he can have his readers think through hemps potential while giving a modest answer to give superiority to what is true and that hemp is, hemp is finally being acknowledged and growing in America.
Mitchell was less effective than Fine is persuading readers and myself with his use of pathos because Mitchell show negative regards for his readers for two-thirds of his article. Mitchell started his article off well by sympathizing with his opposing readers but than throughout the article he was very assertive in appealing to strength and support for his argument, which made readers and myself feel left out of the conversation. On the other hand, Fine’s verbal irony was very effective because it grabbed the attention of the readers and myself by continuously employing facts and showing that he can be trusted with his truthful appeal. Fine was more effective in this use of pathos because he understood his audience and how to present information, while Mitchell failed to recognized that you can not be sympathetic to your audience only a quarter of the time you are trying to convince them to agree with your views.
In conclusion, Fine is more effective and more persuasive than Mitchell. However, both failed to convince me any further to why I should believe or not believe in hemps market potential. To conclude my analysis, I would offer a suggestion to both Fine and Mitchell. When writing an article using logos and pathos, understand what information to present to your audience and how to present this information to your audience. This will prove effective for Mitchell because it will allow him to understand how to continue his sympathetic appeal throughout the article, without leaving the readers feeling falsely tricked into believing that he actually resonate with them. For Fine, this will prove effective by allowing him to take notice of an audience that is already as knowledgeable as him so that he can offer new and informative information to further a readers support for hemp.